As a child growing up in New York, I, like every kid around me (that
I knew of), had natural feelings for the opposite sex. When I saw a pretty
little girl come my way or look over and flash a smile at me, my heart
fluttered, my cheeks blushed, and I no doubt, shuffled my feet and shyly
looked away.

As shy as I was and as busy as I was playing sports, I always liked girls.
No one had to tell me that I should. I just did.

When I became a teen, the feelings continued, but I was still shy and
still busy with sports. Except this time around when I thought about a
girl, I thought about marriage. To me, getting married seemed like a prerequisite
to happiness, to completeness. Don't ask me why, because I still wasn't
dating. It was an instinctive feeling. I knew I was born to get married.

Ben Franklin, who was not the philander history rewriters make him out
to be (he firmly believed in the law of chastity), expressed long ago,
what I by nature felt as a teen. In a attempt to persuade a young friend
to reject the idea of a mistress and embrace the institution of marriage,
Franklin wrote:

"Marriage is the proper remedy. It is the most natural state of
man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid
happiness. Your reasons against entering into it at present appear to
me not well founded. The circumstantial advantages you have in view by
postponing it are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison
with that of the thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the
man and woman united that make the complete human being. Separate, she
wants his force of body and strength of reason; he, her softness, sensibility,
and acute discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the
world. A single man has not nearly the value he would have in that state
of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair
of scissors. If you get a prudent, healthy wife, your industry in your
profession, with her good economy, will be a fortune sufficient."

Scripture sums it up this way: "Neither is the man without the woman,
neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." As an earlier command
to Adam and Eve that they become "one flesh," a complete being.Such
a blissful unity comes only when two people, naturally in love, bound
by a covenant to love and share that love between themselves and their
children, are married and bound to each other and none other. They then
become one flesh, first, in the natural unity of sexual intercourse; second,
through the resulting offspring who literally possess a genetic code linked
to both parents; and third, through the common endeavor of raising the
product of their love, their children.

They also become one, as Dr. Franklin instructed, because of their natural
differences which interlock and compliment each other in a wonderful symphony,
which is achieved through a lifetime of give and take, sacrifice, patience,
struggle, and mutual reform.

With the coming of grandchildren, the unifying common causes continues,
and grand child, parent, and grand parent, are all blessed, and pulled
together as a result. It is a wonderful plan devised to refine us, a plan
which has met with the approval and sanction of every great civilization.

That is as it should be, but it is not always that way. The fault lies
not with the family, but with the less than salutary exercise of free
choice by some individuals.It is also the fault of forces which in ignorance
or malicious intent, are working to manipulate that free choice in ways
which will destroy the family.

I do not hesitate, as anyone who reads this column well knows, to bring
up the name of Karl Marx and the political system of socialism/communism
as one of the chief offenders.

In words typically hate filled, inflammatory, and loaded with gross generalizations,
Marx decried Western Civilization's belief in the "hallowed co-relation"
of husband to wife and parent to child as "bourgeois claptrap (artifice)"
which he called "disgusting."

He said, children and wives are collectively thought of by parents as
nothing more than "articles of commerce and instruments of labor;"
wives and daughters as "common prostitutes," and bourgeois marriage,
"in reality a system of wives in common."

If this is so, Marx "reasoned," then why not then a free sex
society where anything goes - the very argument the lavender lobby uses
today.

But Marx's conclusions were not based on some "holy" interest
in children, who, like everyone else, he slighted as dumb cattle, but
to the intent of promoting revolution or more specifically, how to succeed
at a revolution. Annihilating the traditional family, that stabilizing
unit of any successful civilization, that transmission site of the values,
religion, and traditions of society, was key to this success .

This is why right smack in the middle of Marx's plan to destroy the family
lay this comment, "We [must] replace home education [with] social
[education]." The motive - sever the transmission belt of values
and stability- the family.

Commenting on the potential of the family to stabilize, and the neglect
of the family to destabilize a nation, French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville
contrasted 19th Century America with 19th Century Europe:

"There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage
is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more
highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe almost all the disturbances
of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise
the natural bonds and legitimate pleasure of home is to contract a taste
for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires. Agitated
by the tumultuous passions that frequently disturb his dwelling, the European
is galled by the obedience with the legislative powers of the state exact.
But when the American retires form the turmoil of public life to the bosom
of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his
pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and
as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms
himself easily to moderate his opinion as well as his tastes. While the
European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society,
the American derives from his won home that love of order which he afterwards
carries with him into public affairs."

Therefore, it takes no grand light-bulb-turning-on revelation to recognize
that incessant assaults on the traditional family - through intrusive
social service regulations, through anti-family/anti-religious school
curriculums, through anti-family/anti-religious children's bills of rights,
through the imposition of gay scout leaders, teachers, and foster parents
on our children, and through the legalization of gay marriage - has anything
to do with an interest in rights for gays and/or rights for children.
It has everything to do with promoting a social revolution, a revolution
inspired by Marx that the shortsighted and the enemy, still embrace today.

If Americans which to keep our country secure, stable, and free, it is
time that they reacquainted themselves and then defended with great vigor
the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

Steve Farrell is the former Managing Editor of Right Magazine, and
a widely published research writer who serves on the staffs at Liberty
Caucus, Enter Stage Right, and Ether Zone. His current projects include
his upcoming book, Democrats In Drag: Another Look at the Republican Party.